zlacker

>>jgraha+(OP)
While Cloudflare appears to be doing things that are meant to help everyday people, I can't help but be suspicious. This is an organization that sticks with the "we don't host" bullshit line when web sites serve up Trojans which pretend to be Adobe Flash installers. While there's more subjectivity involved with dealing with hosting the content of spammers, there is zero subjectivity involved with clear and obvious phishing sites.

First, anyone with the tiniest modicum of common sense can tell that these pretend Flash sites are absolutely not in the slightest way legitimate content.

Second, providing services in any way, shape or form is, in fact, hosting. Providing DNS? It's hosting. Providing a cached version of the site? Hosting.

So if they want to be in the business of pretending to be not-hosting, then they have to stop providing services that without which web sites would cease to function. Are they now going to claim that they're not providing meaningful services to domains registered through them, and therefore they should not be responsible for people who are doing illegal things?

Probably.

>>johnkl+zv
I appreciate that these decisions can seem easy, but broadly do you want a private company deciding what can be on the internet, or do you want that decision made by a judge with due process?

>>zackbl+Fz
Fake Adobe Flash update web sites are outside of the scope of subjectivity when it comes to free speech. Or would you like to assert otherwise?